[PERMANENTLY CLOSED] A problem at the bottom of reason

[ScottA]

History also tells us they are a lot of people who believed themselves to possess some great knowledge, but they were proven to be false. A lot of people claim things all the time, but we have no good reason to believe them. They always claim they understand things, but really do not know anything. We have been waiting for hundreds of years for the supernatural to effectively show itself. We don't even know what to look for. I'm not going to hold my breathe.

Great and reasonable answer. But I would point out that just as there have been lots of people who have claimed things with no good reason to believe them, there have also been lots who had good reason to believe them, i.e. miracles and such, prophetic truth that cannot be explained away, etc.. And then there is the personal testimony (would be claims). A couple hundred wackos a year, does not justify turning a deaf ear to the millions of others like myself who are genuine. And while you all may have been waiting for hundreds of years for the supernatural to effectively show itself, millions upon millions of us have seen and witnessed that which you have missed. The fact that you missed it, while so many others did not...well, a detective would have to say, "What's really missing here?"

But I want to stop short of venting (sorry for what slipped out), and take your comment about "not even knowing what to look for" serious. That is an awesome statement, and much appreciated!

My personal discovery of seeing behind the curtain, came when I did not believe. I simply ran out of options, ideas. I gave up after knocking on every other door. In the quiet of my own moment of tragedy, I just started talking (really in disbelief) as a challenge to God...and he answered. So...what they say, is true. Keep knocking.

Now...I don't believe, I know.

 

[madera23]

Great and reasonable answer. But I would point out that just as there have been lots of people who have claimed things with no good reason to believe them, there have also been lots who had good reason to believe them, i.e. miracles and such, prophetic truth that cannot be explained away, etc.. And then there is the personal testimony (would be claims). A couple hundred wackos a year, does not justify turning a deaf ear to the millions of others like myself who are genuine. And while you all may have been waiting for hundreds of years for the supernatural to effectively show itself, millions upon millions of us have seen and witnessed that which you have missed. The fact that you missed it, while so many others did not...well, a detective would have to say, "What's really missing here?"

But I want to stop short of venting (sorry for what slipped out), and take your comment about "not even knowing what to look for" serious. That is an awesome statement, and much appreciated!

My personal discovery of seeing behind the curtain, came when I did not believe. I simply ran out of options, ideas. I gave up after knocking on every other door. In the quiet of my own moment of tragedy, I just started talking (really in disbelief) as a challenge to God...and he answered. So...what they say, is true. Keep knocking.

Now...I don't believe, I know.[/QUOTE

I know where you are coming from, I know too. So much proof of God's miracles and insights it is impossible for people who do not understand
to believe it.
Thanks for your post.
Madera

 

[Eudaimonist]

So much proof of God's miracles and insights it is impossible for people who do not understand
to believe it.

What proof do you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

That was not my point. So, no, I will not demonstrate. But since you must surely not have understood my point, I will explain myself: It doesn't matter if it was divine revelation or whatever, the point is that it is an example of how one group of people stood on the edge of discovery and were positive, while another group were negative and critical of what proved to be true. The example was also done in the terms of the naysayers, in other words, in all natural terms. God is good.

So it has nothing to do with religious faith or theology leading to knowledge, which makes it off topic. Weird you'd continue to bring it up, but I guess anything will do to distract from the fact that there are no good examples of faith leading to actual knowledge.

Skeptics of the spiritual realm of God are no different than those of the new world

Yes they are. Were skeptics of the new world asking why faith doesn't seem to actually produce knowledge? If not, there isn't much comparison. You ignored my request to show that skeptics of the new world were united in their views about using revelation-based epistemology to determine truth - probably because their actual objections were totally different that those you wish they had made.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok. I'll just break off providing you straight lines so you can post what you imagine are pithy retorts.

Is there some sort of requirement that one has to post condescending remarks to enables faith to generate knowledge? Because that seems to be a pattern in this thread - weird tangents and then personal attacks when I'm not willing to go along for the ride to nowhere.

 

[madera23]

Is there some sort of requirement that one has to post condescending remarks to enables faith to generate knowledge? Because that seems to be a pattern in this thread - weird tangents and then personal attacks when I'm not willing to go along for the ride to nowhere.

Sorry sir, but you have already been taken on a ride to nowhere.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sorry sir, but you have already been taken on a ride to nowhere.

 

[KCfromNC]

Sorry sir, but you have already been taken on a ride to nowhere.

Have we met?

 

[Chriliman]

A skeptic who's main goal is to be skeptical of others, will fail at being skeptical of themselves, but a skeptic who's main goal is to find truth in others, will succeed at finding truth in themselves.

Don't just search for external truth, but search for internal truth as well.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Don't just search for external truth, but search for internal truth as well.

There's no such thing as "internal truth".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

There's no such thing as "internal truth".


eudaimonia,

Mark

Sure there is. If you lie to someone, you have an internal truth that needs to come out. Ever heard of conviction to do the right thing? That is also a form of internal truth that wants to come out.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Sure there is. If you lie to someone, you have an internal truth that needs to come out. Ever heard of conviction to do the right thing? That is also a form of internal truth that wants to come out.

Honesty =/= truth. If you are honest, you are only saying what you believe to be true, not necessarily what is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

Honesty =/= truth. If you are honest, you are only saying what you believe to be true, not necessarily what is true.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Being honest with yourself is a great place to start if you want to find truth. Being honest with yourself doesn't change anything about the universe, it just changes how you view the universe.

 

[ScottA]

So it has nothing to do with religious faith or theology leading to knowledge, which makes it off topic. Weird you'd continue to bring it up, but I guess anything will do to distract from the fact that there are no good examples of faith leading to actual knowledge..

I don't see where "faith leading to knowledge" is the topic. But I would answer that by saying, there are plenty of example all throughout history. Most of the world's population have been people of faith. Within Christianity it is even a promise: "Seek and you shall find." and all who seek, do. Unless, of course, you seek in the wrong place...which was the aspect of this topic I was meaning to address.

Yes they are. Were skeptics of the new world asking why faith doesn't seem to actually produce knowledge? If not, there isn't much comparison. You ignored my request to show that skeptics of the new world were united in their views about using revelation-based epistemology to determine truth - probably because their actual objections were totally different that those you wish they had made.

I don't follow you here. My example of the skeptics of the new world discovery, was simply intended to show that history supports the idea that skepticism is not the best approach for seeing over new horizons.

 

[HitchSlap]

Being honest with yourself is a great place to start if you want to find truth. Being honest with yourself doesn't change anything about the universe, it just changes how you view the universe.

Honesty is the best policy. I recommend it.

We can't prove reality exists, so we have to assume it does. This is the starting point. If we accept reality exists, can we then learn something about it? It would seem we can. So the question is, what's the best way to do this? Turns out that models with predictive capabilities work better than those without. Savvy?

 

[quatona]

Sure there is. If you lie to someone, you have an internal truth that needs to come out.

And who appointed you the arbiter of other persons´ "internal truths"?

 

[Chriliman]

And who appointed you the arbiter of other persons´ "internal truths"?

I guess it doesn't need to come out, but if your being honest with yourself you should feel convicted to confess the truth.

God bless!

 

[Chriliman]

Honesty is the best policy. I recommend it.

We can't prove reality exists, so we have to assume it does. This is the starting point. If we accept reality exists, can we then learn something about it? It would seem we can. So the question is, what's the best way to do this? Turns out that models with predictive capabilities work better than those without. Savvy?

You keep assuming, Hitchslap, I'll keep believing.

 

[HitchSlap]

You keep assuming, Hitchslap, I'll keep believing.

By all means believe what you need too.

 

[madera23]

What proof do you mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

The proof comes from your relationship with God. not from mine.